Letter from Concerned Anglicans in the Oxford Diocese in Response to Ad Clerum of 31st October 2018

We wish to record our grave concern over the letter issued by the four Oxford bishops on 31st October 2018. There is, of course, much in the letter that we joyfully affirm:

• We wholeheartedly agree with the call to love one another as we seek to build a common life.

• We wish to strive to play our part in opposing bullying and harassment.

• We wish to respect all people and we endorse the view of the Archbishops that in discussions, no person is a problem or an issue.

• Those who are teachers amongst us aspire to preach and exercise pastoral care with sensitivity.

• We entirely endorse the view that nobody should be told that their sexual orientation makes them an unsuitable candidate for leadership in the Church.

However, we are dismayed that nowhere in the letter is there any articulation of the current teaching of the Church of England on marriage and sexual relationships, based as it is on the words of Scripture, nor is there any expressed support for it. Instead we read references to ‘attitudes changing’, respect for ‘different views’, and willingness to ‘listen to different streams in the debate’.

We are disturbed by the apparent ambiguity of the language. Much of what is said about sexual orientation is uncontroversial. We know of no church among our number which sees this as an obstacle to faithful discipleship. However, in discussing leadership in the local church, the letter seeks to suggest that this should mean acceptance into leadership of those who identify themselves as LGBTI+. This carries with it a range of understandings about what is appropriate by way of lifestyle. We cannot see how it is right to accept as Christian leaders those who advocate lifestyles that are not consistent with New Testament teaching. The Ordinal asks a new deacon or priest ‘will you endeavour to fashion your own life and that of your household according to the way of Christ, that you may be a pattern and example to Christ’s people?’ The mind of Christ, and therefore the way of Christ, is expressed in the whole witness of Scripture.

A further example of ambiguous language arises out of the references to everyone having ‘a place at the table’ in God’s Church. If what is meant by that is a warm welcome, we are entirely agreed. However, in supporting the formulation first produced by the Bishops of Lichfield, the Letter makes specific reference to nobody being excluded or discouraged from receiving the sacraments of baptism or the Lord’s Supper. Such indiscriminate participation seems to be inconsistent with the witness of Scripture: for the early Christians, these sacraments were only for those of the household of faith (eg, Acts 2: 41-42); and the Apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11: 27-29 clearly discourages participation in the Lord’s Supper for those who have not examined themselves.

We are concerned too by the references to LGBTI+ ‘identity’, when as Christians we want to urge that our identity is to be found ‘in Christ;’ by the generalisation of ‘gender identity’, when there are so many aspects to this question; by the apparent desire to see the Church innovating liturgically in order to meet an expressed desire of some same-sex couples; and by the organisation of a group of LGBTI+ advisers which does not include same-sex attracted people who advocate celibacy in faithfulness to Scripture.

Overall, however, our overriding concern is with the direction of travel which the Diocese is taking as revealed by this letter. In its desire for new expressions of ‘inclusion’, it could end up excluding those who hold to the traditional teaching of Scripture and doing a great disservice to those of us who experience same-sex attraction. We are not here simply stating an aversion to change; we are, however, convinced that failing to hold the Bible’s teaching out to everyone, including those who identify as LGBTI+, is to show a lack of that very love the letter urges us to exhibit. As Bishop William Love of the Diocese of Albany in the Episcopal Church of the USA said last month in relation to the introduction of ‘blessings’ for same-sex couples, it ‘does a great disservice and injustice to our gay and lesbian Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by leading them to believe that God gives his blessing to the sharing of sexual intimacy within a same-sex relationship, when in fact He has reserved the gift of sexual intimacy for men and women within the confines of marriage between a man and woman.’

We recognise that as fallen creatures, sexual desire and expression is disordered in all our lives and we do not wish to represent ourselves as in any way morally superior. We recognise that we have much to learn from others, including those with whom we disagree, but the issue concerns the teaching of Christ’s Church, however lacking we may be as disciples of Christ. If we cannot clearly advocate God’s revealed will and encourage each other to repent, then we are ill-served by the Diocese. We would love our bishops to articulate clearly God’s love for us in helping us see both the attractiveness of deep friendships, but also the appropriate setting for sexual intimacy – namely in marriage between a man and a woman. However, if they are unwilling to do this, we would ask them to recognise the seriousness of the difference between us: advocacy of same-sex sexual intimacy is either an expression of the love of God or it creates an obstacle to people entering the kingdom of God. It cannot be both. The situation is serious. If not addressed, we would all struggle to support the leadership of our bishops in this matter and a number of our churches may want to seek alternative means of receiving episcopal ministry, in recognition that your position is seriously differentiated from theirs. This would be a tragedy.